A partition of 80 into seven parts
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The sum of seven positive integers, not necessarily distinct, is 80. If placed appropriately on the vertices of this graph, two of them will be joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1 (that is, they are not relatively prime). In non-decreasing order, what are those seven integers?
arithmetic
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The sum of seven positive integers, not necessarily distinct, is 80. If placed appropriately on the vertices of this graph, two of them will be joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1 (that is, they are not relatively prime). In non-decreasing order, what are those seven integers?
arithmetic
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
For those interested, this is were it all began:youtube.com/watch?v=6Giujua_s80&t=18s
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:29
Is there any reason to the strange phrasing non-decreasing order? You can just say "increasing order".
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 21:15
@Hugh It's maths-y language... Strictly speaking, the number sequence does not always increase, since the second 14 isn't larger than the first. But it never decreases.
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 22:06
@Angkor ah, yes. I had not yet looked at the solution provided by Dr. Xorile and so I did not see that there is a duplicate number. The choice of words makes a lot more sense now.
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 23:12
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The sum of seven positive integers, not necessarily distinct, is 80. If placed appropriately on the vertices of this graph, two of them will be joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1 (that is, they are not relatively prime). In non-decreasing order, what are those seven integers?
arithmetic
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
The sum of seven positive integers, not necessarily distinct, is 80. If placed appropriately on the vertices of this graph, two of them will be joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1 (that is, they are not relatively prime). In non-decreasing order, what are those seven integers?
arithmetic
arithmetic
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
asked Dec 1 at 16:20
Bernardo Recamán Santos
2,3231141
2,3231141
For those interested, this is were it all began:youtube.com/watch?v=6Giujua_s80&t=18s
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:29
Is there any reason to the strange phrasing non-decreasing order? You can just say "increasing order".
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 21:15
@Hugh It's maths-y language... Strictly speaking, the number sequence does not always increase, since the second 14 isn't larger than the first. But it never decreases.
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 22:06
@Angkor ah, yes. I had not yet looked at the solution provided by Dr. Xorile and so I did not see that there is a duplicate number. The choice of words makes a lot more sense now.
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 23:12
add a comment |
For those interested, this is were it all began:youtube.com/watch?v=6Giujua_s80&t=18s
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:29
Is there any reason to the strange phrasing non-decreasing order? You can just say "increasing order".
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 21:15
@Hugh It's maths-y language... Strictly speaking, the number sequence does not always increase, since the second 14 isn't larger than the first. But it never decreases.
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 22:06
@Angkor ah, yes. I had not yet looked at the solution provided by Dr. Xorile and so I did not see that there is a duplicate number. The choice of words makes a lot more sense now.
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 23:12
For those interested, this is were it all began:youtube.com/watch?v=6Giujua_s80&t=18s
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:29
For those interested, this is were it all began:youtube.com/watch?v=6Giujua_s80&t=18s
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:29
Is there any reason to the strange phrasing non-decreasing order? You can just say "increasing order".
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 21:15
Is there any reason to the strange phrasing non-decreasing order? You can just say "increasing order".
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 21:15
@Hugh It's maths-y language... Strictly speaking, the number sequence does not always increase, since the second 14 isn't larger than the first. But it never decreases.
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 22:06
@Hugh It's maths-y language... Strictly speaking, the number sequence does not always increase, since the second 14 isn't larger than the first. But it never decreases.
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 22:06
@Angkor ah, yes. I had not yet looked at the solution provided by Dr. Xorile and so I did not see that there is a duplicate number. The choice of words makes a lot more sense now.
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 23:12
@Angkor ah, yes. I had not yet looked at the solution provided by Dr. Xorile and so I did not see that there is a duplicate number. The choice of words makes a lot more sense now.
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 23:12
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I don't know if this answer is unique, but it seems to work
1,5,7,9,14,14,30
Here it is in place:
There seems to be some confusion in the other answers, so let me spell it out my thinking a little. OP specified that the numbers would be "joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1".
In other words, if they are joined, then they have a common divisor greater than 1. And not otherwise.
So:
- 7 and 14 are joined (gcd (greatest common divisor) is 7)
- 7 and 30 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 5 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 14 and 14 are joined (gcd is 14)
- 30 and 14 are joined (gcd is 2)
- 30 and 9 are joined (gcd is 3)
- 14 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 1 is not joined to anything (gcd is always 1)
- etc.
In order to solve this, I realized that the number in the middle must have at least 3 distinct prime factors, so that it could share those factors with the different arms and have those arms not share a factor.
2 x 3 x 5 is the smallest way to do this. The challenge was going to be keeping it below 80. So I made the 2 go to the left where more factors would come into play and the 3 and 5 go right. That gets us to here:
Now $x$ needs to share a divisor with the leftmost position. It cannot be 2, 3, or 5, so 7 is a reasonable guess:
Now we add that up so far and it comes to 73. Mmm. That would make the final number 7, which would be sharing a factor with some of the numbers on the board already. In fact, any number less than 7 would share a factor with something... except 1. So I changed 3 to 9 ($3^2$). This doesn't change any of the divisor logic - numbers will still either be relatively prime or not. But it leaves the final number equal to 1. Hence the solution. Probably unique, looking through this logic.
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
Seems like there are a lot of possible solutions - but assuming the two connected numbers common divisor cannot be one of the two numbers, and that you cannot repeat a number, I got this:
6 10
4 12 36
8 14
Every number shares a divisor of 2, which is more than 1.
So my final answer is:
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 36.
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
1
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f75954%2fa-partition-of-80-into-seven-parts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I don't know if this answer is unique, but it seems to work
1,5,7,9,14,14,30
Here it is in place:
There seems to be some confusion in the other answers, so let me spell it out my thinking a little. OP specified that the numbers would be "joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1".
In other words, if they are joined, then they have a common divisor greater than 1. And not otherwise.
So:
- 7 and 14 are joined (gcd (greatest common divisor) is 7)
- 7 and 30 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 5 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 14 and 14 are joined (gcd is 14)
- 30 and 14 are joined (gcd is 2)
- 30 and 9 are joined (gcd is 3)
- 14 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 1 is not joined to anything (gcd is always 1)
- etc.
In order to solve this, I realized that the number in the middle must have at least 3 distinct prime factors, so that it could share those factors with the different arms and have those arms not share a factor.
2 x 3 x 5 is the smallest way to do this. The challenge was going to be keeping it below 80. So I made the 2 go to the left where more factors would come into play and the 3 and 5 go right. That gets us to here:
Now $x$ needs to share a divisor with the leftmost position. It cannot be 2, 3, or 5, so 7 is a reasonable guess:
Now we add that up so far and it comes to 73. Mmm. That would make the final number 7, which would be sharing a factor with some of the numbers on the board already. In fact, any number less than 7 would share a factor with something... except 1. So I changed 3 to 9 ($3^2$). This doesn't change any of the divisor logic - numbers will still either be relatively prime or not. But it leaves the final number equal to 1. Hence the solution. Probably unique, looking through this logic.
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I don't know if this answer is unique, but it seems to work
1,5,7,9,14,14,30
Here it is in place:
There seems to be some confusion in the other answers, so let me spell it out my thinking a little. OP specified that the numbers would be "joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1".
In other words, if they are joined, then they have a common divisor greater than 1. And not otherwise.
So:
- 7 and 14 are joined (gcd (greatest common divisor) is 7)
- 7 and 30 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 5 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 14 and 14 are joined (gcd is 14)
- 30 and 14 are joined (gcd is 2)
- 30 and 9 are joined (gcd is 3)
- 14 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 1 is not joined to anything (gcd is always 1)
- etc.
In order to solve this, I realized that the number in the middle must have at least 3 distinct prime factors, so that it could share those factors with the different arms and have those arms not share a factor.
2 x 3 x 5 is the smallest way to do this. The challenge was going to be keeping it below 80. So I made the 2 go to the left where more factors would come into play and the 3 and 5 go right. That gets us to here:
Now $x$ needs to share a divisor with the leftmost position. It cannot be 2, 3, or 5, so 7 is a reasonable guess:
Now we add that up so far and it comes to 73. Mmm. That would make the final number 7, which would be sharing a factor with some of the numbers on the board already. In fact, any number less than 7 would share a factor with something... except 1. So I changed 3 to 9 ($3^2$). This doesn't change any of the divisor logic - numbers will still either be relatively prime or not. But it leaves the final number equal to 1. Hence the solution. Probably unique, looking through this logic.
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I don't know if this answer is unique, but it seems to work
1,5,7,9,14,14,30
Here it is in place:
There seems to be some confusion in the other answers, so let me spell it out my thinking a little. OP specified that the numbers would be "joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1".
In other words, if they are joined, then they have a common divisor greater than 1. And not otherwise.
So:
- 7 and 14 are joined (gcd (greatest common divisor) is 7)
- 7 and 30 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 5 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 14 and 14 are joined (gcd is 14)
- 30 and 14 are joined (gcd is 2)
- 30 and 9 are joined (gcd is 3)
- 14 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 1 is not joined to anything (gcd is always 1)
- etc.
In order to solve this, I realized that the number in the middle must have at least 3 distinct prime factors, so that it could share those factors with the different arms and have those arms not share a factor.
2 x 3 x 5 is the smallest way to do this. The challenge was going to be keeping it below 80. So I made the 2 go to the left where more factors would come into play and the 3 and 5 go right. That gets us to here:
Now $x$ needs to share a divisor with the leftmost position. It cannot be 2, 3, or 5, so 7 is a reasonable guess:
Now we add that up so far and it comes to 73. Mmm. That would make the final number 7, which would be sharing a factor with some of the numbers on the board already. In fact, any number less than 7 would share a factor with something... except 1. So I changed 3 to 9 ($3^2$). This doesn't change any of the divisor logic - numbers will still either be relatively prime or not. But it leaves the final number equal to 1. Hence the solution. Probably unique, looking through this logic.
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
I don't know if this answer is unique, but it seems to work
1,5,7,9,14,14,30
Here it is in place:
There seems to be some confusion in the other answers, so let me spell it out my thinking a little. OP specified that the numbers would be "joined by an edge if and only if they have a common divisor greater than 1".
In other words, if they are joined, then they have a common divisor greater than 1. And not otherwise.
So:
- 7 and 14 are joined (gcd (greatest common divisor) is 7)
- 7 and 30 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 7 and 5 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 14 and 14 are joined (gcd is 14)
- 30 and 14 are joined (gcd is 2)
- 30 and 9 are joined (gcd is 3)
- 14 and 9 are not joined (gcd is 1)
- 1 is not joined to anything (gcd is always 1)
- etc.
In order to solve this, I realized that the number in the middle must have at least 3 distinct prime factors, so that it could share those factors with the different arms and have those arms not share a factor.
2 x 3 x 5 is the smallest way to do this. The challenge was going to be keeping it below 80. So I made the 2 go to the left where more factors would come into play and the 3 and 5 go right. That gets us to here:
Now $x$ needs to share a divisor with the leftmost position. It cannot be 2, 3, or 5, so 7 is a reasonable guess:
Now we add that up so far and it comes to 73. Mmm. That would make the final number 7, which would be sharing a factor with some of the numbers on the board already. In fact, any number less than 7 would share a factor with something... except 1. So I changed 3 to 9 ($3^2$). This doesn't change any of the divisor logic - numbers will still either be relatively prime or not. But it leaves the final number equal to 1. Hence the solution. Probably unique, looking through this logic.
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
edited Dec 1 at 18:13
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
answered Dec 1 at 16:35
Dr Xorile
11.3k12363
11.3k12363
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
add a comment |
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
Quick! I think it'd be nice to show how they fit on the graph. Could you also explain how you got to this answer?
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 17:09
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
The answer is unique.
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:30
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
Seems like there are a lot of possible solutions - but assuming the two connected numbers common divisor cannot be one of the two numbers, and that you cannot repeat a number, I got this:
6 10
4 12 36
8 14
Every number shares a divisor of 2, which is more than 1.
So my final answer is:
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 36.
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
1
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
Seems like there are a lot of possible solutions - but assuming the two connected numbers common divisor cannot be one of the two numbers, and that you cannot repeat a number, I got this:
6 10
4 12 36
8 14
Every number shares a divisor of 2, which is more than 1.
So my final answer is:
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 36.
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
1
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
Seems like there are a lot of possible solutions - but assuming the two connected numbers common divisor cannot be one of the two numbers, and that you cannot repeat a number, I got this:
6 10
4 12 36
8 14
Every number shares a divisor of 2, which is more than 1.
So my final answer is:
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 36.
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
Seems like there are a lot of possible solutions - but assuming the two connected numbers common divisor cannot be one of the two numbers, and that you cannot repeat a number, I got this:
6 10
4 12 36
8 14
Every number shares a divisor of 2, which is more than 1.
So my final answer is:
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 36.
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
answered Dec 1 at 17:04
a guy
36112
36112
1
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
add a comment |
1
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
1
1
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
12 and 36 are not relatively prime, so should be connected. Also 4 and 12. 6 and 10. 6 and 10, etc etc
– Dr Xorile
Dec 1 at 17:52
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f75954%2fa-partition-of-80-into-seven-parts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
For those interested, this is were it all began:youtube.com/watch?v=6Giujua_s80&t=18s
– Bernardo Recamán Santos
Dec 1 at 18:29
Is there any reason to the strange phrasing non-decreasing order? You can just say "increasing order".
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 21:15
@Hugh It's maths-y language... Strictly speaking, the number sequence does not always increase, since the second 14 isn't larger than the first. But it never decreases.
– Angkor
Dec 1 at 22:06
@Angkor ah, yes. I had not yet looked at the solution provided by Dr. Xorile and so I did not see that there is a duplicate number. The choice of words makes a lot more sense now.
– Hugh
Dec 1 at 23:12